2. LANGUAGE RIGHTS AND PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT
Page 7 of 21
Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 186762 and section 17(1) of the Charter guarantee everyone the right to use either official language in the debates and proceedings of Parliament. This right is further implemented by Part I of the Official Languages Act (OLA), making English and French the official languages of Parliament. This part of the OLA also provides for the simultaneous interpretation of debates or other proceedings of Parliament from one official language into the other. Furthermore, everything reported in official reports of debates or other proceedings of Parliament must be in the official language in which it was said, accompanied by a translation in the other official language.
These rights and duties, which are rarely the subject of court actions, are intended to give English and French equal rights and privileges as to their use in parliamentary proceedings, such as the debates of the House of Commons and Senate, and the work of their various committees. During the period covered by this report, only one decision considered the rights covered by Part I of the OLA, the Knopf case. Similar rights contained in the Northwest Territories Official Languages Act were considered in the Northwest Territories (Attorney General) v. Fédération Franco-ténoise Court of Appeal decision, covered in Chapter 4 of this report.
2.1 The language rights of witnesses appearing before a House of Commons Committee
Knopf v. Canada (Speaker of the House of Commons) (F.C.A.)63
In this case, the Federal Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether a parliamentary committee’s refusal to distribute unilingual documents to its members, tendered by a witness in support of his appearance before the committee, was an infringement of the witness’s language rights pursuant to section 4 of the OLA. Section 4(1) reads as follows:
4. (1) English and French are the official languages of Parliament, and everyone has the right to use either of those languages in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.
The applicant, Mr. Knopf, had testified in English, the language of his choice, before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in April 2004. The Clerk of the Committee accepted the unilingual English documents tendered in support of Mr. Knopf’s appearance; however, the Chair of the Committee refused to distribute the documents to Committee members. According to Committee procedure, only documents in both official languages can be distributed to Committee members.
Mr. Knopf filed a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages about the Chair’s refusal to distribute the documents. The Commissioner concluded that the Committee’s decision was not in breach of the OLA and was entirely consistent with its spirit and intent.
Mr. Knopf subsequently filed an action in Federal Court pursuant to section 77 of the OLA. He asked the Court, among other things, to declare that his language rights under sections 16 and 17 of the Charter and section 4 of the OLA had been breached by the Committee. He also sought an order from the Court compelling all committees of the House of Commons to accept, distribute and consider relevant documents submitted by witnesses in either official language, without the need for prior translation.
A. The Federal Court judgment
Layden-Stevenson J. of the Federal Court found that the Committee did not infringe on Mr. Knopf’s language rights and dismissed the application.64 She held that while section 4(1) of the OLA protects everyone’s right, including that of witnesses, to speak in the official language of his or her choice during committee proceedings and debates, it does not confer the same right in regards to the distribution of documents. In her view, Mr. Knopf’s request to have unilingual documents distributed to Committee members was not a question of language rights, but rather a challenge to the way in which the Committee conducted its business, which falls within the inherent category of parliamentary privilege regarding the control exercised by the houses of Parliament over their day-to-day procedure. Consequently, it was for Parliament, and not the courts, to determine whether the exercise of that privilege was necessary or appropriate in a particular case.
B. The Federal Court of Appeal judgment
On appeal, Mr. Knopf argued that the Federal Court’s interpretation of the word "use" in section 4(1) of the OLA was incorrect, that it limited its meaning to oral speech, effectively excluding the right for a witness to make written submissions or present written material in either official language.
Trudel J.A., writing for the Court, explained that a careful reading of the Federal Court decision does not support Mr. Knopf’s interpretation, and that Layden-Stevenson J.’s use of the word "speak" in describing the right provided in section 4(1) of the OLA was not restricted to the faculty of oral speech. Rather, she stated that section 4(1) of the OLA provides the appellant with a right to "address" the House in the language of his choice.
Trudel J.A. agreed with the Federal Court that Mr. Knopf’s request that his documents be distributed to Committee members does not fall within the parameters of section 4(1) of the OLA. In her reasons, she described how section 4(1) of the OLA recognizes the right of any person participating in parliamentary proceedings "to use" English or French, creating "a scheme of unilingualism at the option of the speaker or writer."65 She explained that this right is unilateral in nature; it provided Mr. Knopf with a right to address the Committee in the language of his choice only. Once this right has been exercised, section 4(1) does not compel the Committee to act in a certain way with the oral or written information provided to it. The decision on how and when to treat the information received from a witness belongs to the Committee. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Mr. Knopf sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This request was refused.66
